Blueberry plant denominated &#39;Calypso&#39;

ABSTRACT

‘Calypso’ is a new blueberry cultivar of primarily  Vaccinium corymbosum . The rest of its parentage is from  V. darrowii  (13.3%),  V. angustifolium  (3.8%),  V. tenellum  (&lt;1%), and  V ashei  (&lt;1%). It is a highly productive cultivar with excellent fresh fruit quality. Plants of ‘Calypso’ are vigorous and upright. Its canes are numerous and moderately branched, and the fruit are well exposed. Its berries are large, have small, dry picking scars, medium light blue color, and excellent firmness and flavor. In general, the fruit of ‘Calypso’ has held extremely well on the bush after ripening, except in the unusually hot summers of 2012 in Michigan and Oregon. In that year it was softer than normal, performing similar to ‘Liberty’ under hot conditions.

LATIN NAME AND VARIETY DENOMINATION

The present disclosure relates to a new and distinct variety of Vaccinium corymbosum, which is hereby denominated ‘Calypso.’

SUMMARY

The present disclosure relates to a new and distinct variety of highbush blueberry plant, denominated ‘Calypso.’ Calypso' is primarily Vaccinium corymbosum with 13.3% of its genes coming from V. darrowii, 3.8% from V. angustifolium, and <1% from V. tenellum and V ashei. It is a highly productive cultivar with excellent fresh fruit quality. Plants of ‘Calypso’ are vigorous and upright. Its canes are numerous and moderately branched, and the fruit are well exposed. Its berries are large, have small, dry picking scars, medium light blue color, and excellent firmness and flavor. In general, the fruit of ‘Calypso’ holds extremely well on the bush after ripening, except in the unusually hot summers, as occurred in 2012 in Michigan and Oregon. In that year it was softer than normal; performing similar to ‘Liberty’ under hot conditions.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The present variety will become more fully understood from the detailed description and the accompanying drawings, wherein:

FIG. 1 is a photographic print in full color of a first ‘Calypso’ blueberry bush, wherein the grasses on the ground are not part of the ‘Calypso’ blueberry bush;

FIG. 2 is a photographic print in full color of a second ‘Calypso’ blueberry bush, wherein the grasses on the ground, the bushes in the background and the branches projecting from the right edge are not part of the ‘Calypso’ blueberry bush;

FIG. 3 is a photographic print in full color illustrating a first ‘Calypso’ branch with exemplary fruit clusters, wherein most, but not all, of the fruit shown is mature;

FIG. 4 is a photographic print in full color illustrating a second ‘Calypso’ branch with exemplary fruit clusters, wherein most, but not all, of the fruit shown is mature; and

FIG. 5 is a photographic print in full color illustrating a ‘Calypso’ branch with exemplary leaves, wherein the plants on the ground in the background are not part of the ‘Calypso’ blueberry bush.

DETAILED BOTANICAL DESCRIPTION

The following is a detailed botanical description of the new and distinct variety of blueberry denominated ‘Calypso,’ its flowers, fruit, and foliage.

‘Calypso’ is primarily Vaccinium corymbosum with 13.3% of its genes coming from V. darrowii, 3.8% from V. angustifolium, and <1% from V. tenellum and V. ashei. Emasculated flowers of ‘Draper,’ the male parent (i.e., the seed parent), were pollinated in 2002 with pollen from ‘Elliott,’ the female parent. The seeds were germinated, grown in a greenhouse for 1 year, and then field planted at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center in Benton Harbor, Mich. ‘Calypso’ was first selected from a group of 83 siblings in 2006. FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 show exemplary ‘Calypso’ bushes, FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 show ‘Calypso’ branches with exemplary fruit clusters, and FIG. 5 shows exemplary leaves from a ‘Calypso’ bush.

The original selection of ‘Calypso’ was evaluated at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center (SWMREC) at Benton Harbor, Mich. for four years. Softwood cuttings were also set in advanced trials at Grand Junction, Mich. (MBG Marketing), South Haven, Mich. (DeGrandchamp Nursery), Silverton, Oreg. (Oregon Blueberry Company), Corvallis, Oreg. (ARS-USDA), Lowell, Oreg. (Fall Creek Nursery), and Osorno, Chile (Hortifrut). Two year old plants were set at 4×10 foot spacing in 2008 in Michigan, and in 2009 in Oregon and Chile. As discussed below, the plantings in Michigan were evaluated for three years, and those in Oregon and Chile for two years.

‘Calypso’ is moderately self-fertile but requires pollination from another highbush blueberry cultivar for maximum fruit development.

‘Calypso’ may be propagated by hardwood cuttings in a greenhouse and then planted in the field. Initiation of root development from hardwood cuttings may take about four to six weeks.

Initiation of root development from microshoots takes about three to four weeks. Such methods are discussed in the following references, incorporated by reference herein: Doran, W. L. and Bailey, J. S. “Propagation of the high bush blueberry by softwood cuttings,” Bulletin Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station; no. 410. Amherst, Mass. Massachusetts State College, 1943; Doehlert, C. A. “Propagating blueberries from hardwood cuttings,” Circular (New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station) 490. New Brunswick, N.J. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, 1945; Doehlert, C. A. “Propagating blueberries from hardwood cuttings,” Circular (New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station) 551. New Brunswick, N.J.: New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, 1953; Zimmerman, R. H. 1991. Micropropagation of temperate zone fruit and nut crops. In: Debergh, P. C. and Zimmerman, R. H. (eds.) Micropropagation: Technology and application. Kluwer, Dordreckt; El Shiekh, A.; Wildung, D. K.; Luby, J. J.; Sargent, K. L.; Read, P. E. “Long term effects of propagation by tissue culture or softwood single node cuttings on growth habit, yield, and berry weight of ‘Northblue’ blueberry,” Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 1996, 121: 2, 339 342; Galletta, G. J.; Ballington, J. R.; Daubeny, H. A.; Brennan, R. M.; Reisch, B. J.; Pratt, C.; Ferguson, A. R.; Seal, A. G.; McNeilage, M. A.; Fraser, L. G.; Harvey, C. F.; Beatson, R. A.; Hancock, J. F.; Scott, D. H.; Lawrence, F. J.; Janick, J. (ed.); Moore, J. N. “Fruit breeding. Volume II. Vine and small fruits,” Department of Horticulture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind. 1996 John Wiley and Sons; New York; USA; Strik, B.; Brun, C.; Ahmedullah, M.; Antonelli, A.; Askham, L.; Barney, D.; Bristow, P.; Fisher, G.; Hart, J.; Havens, D. Draper A. D. and Chandler C. K. “Accelerating highbush blueberry selection evaluation by early propagation,” Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 1986 111(2): 301-303; Pritts M. P. and Hancock J. F. (Eds.) “Highbush blueberry production guide,” Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, Ithaca, N.Y., USA 1992.

The fruiting season of ‘Calypso’ is late mid-season, probably overlapping with ‘Jersey’ and ‘Legacy.’ Its overall fruit quality is much superior to ‘Jersey.’ Its fruit are larger than ‘Legacy’ and it has better overall fruit quality and a sweeter taste than the fruit of ‘Legacy.’ It is not as vigorous as ‘Legacy,’ but it is more winter hardy, so its yields in Michigan have generally been superior to ‘Legacy.’ ‘Calypso’ is likely well adapted to all northern highbush production areas, except where summer temperatures are routinely above 30° C. ‘Calypso’ can be a late mid-season alternative to ‘Jersey’ and ‘Legacy.’

‘Calypso’ is intended for all northern highbush production areas, except where summers are very hot, such as central Chile, near Chillan and further north. It provides a late mid-season alternative to ‘Legacy’ and ‘Jersey’ with good winter hardiness. It has a very upright habit, high yields, and excellent fruit quality, i.e., very large, small scar, extremely firm and crisp, and excellent flavor that is balanced sweet. However, ‘Calypso’ may not be well adapted to the hotter northern production regions and may produce high numbers of small berries in some years.

‘Calypso’ characteristics are set forth in Table 1, below. Taxonomic characteristics disclosed herein are standard in the practice (R. E. Gough, R. J. Hindle, and V. G. Shutak, “Identification of Ten Highbush Blueberry Cultivars using Morphological Characteristics,” HortScience 11 (5): 512-4, 1976). Color descriptions, except those given in common terms, are presented in Royal Horticultural Society Colour Chart designations. In cases where the color descriptions cited from The Royal Horticultural Society Colour Chart differ from the colors shown in the drawings, the colors cited from The Royal Horticultural Society Colour Chart should be considered accurate. Any deviation from these colors in the drawings is due to failure of the photographic process to exactly duplicate the colors of nature. In addition, fruit color designations in Table 1 are applicable only to mature fruit.

TABLE 1 ‘Calypso’ characteristics Characteristic ‘Calypso’ Plant traits Mature height 1.3 m Mature width 0.9 m Height/width ratio 1.43 Growth habit upright Annual renewal canes 3 to 5 Internode length on spring shoots 1-2.25 cm (1.68 cm average) Mature cane color grayed Mature cane length 0.80-1.10 m (0.98 m average) Mature cane width 1.5 m (all) Bark texture rough Vigor Strong One-year-old shoot: color Green One-year-old shoot: length of medium internode Fruiting type on one-year-old shoots only Time of vegetative bud burst medium Time of beginning of flowering on late one-year-old shoot Time of beginning of fruit ripening on late one-year-old shoot Foliage Leaf shape elliptic Apex shape acute Base shape rounded Leaf length 4.4-5.0 cm (5 cm average); medium Leaf width 2.1-2.8 cm (2.4 cm average); medium Leaf length/ width ratio 2.1; medium Leaf margin entire Leaf nectaries absent Pubescence none Color upper surface green (137A) Intensity of green on upper surface medium Color lower surface green (138B) Petiole length 1-2 cm (1.7 cm average) Petiole color light yellowish green (142C) Bud Bud shape ovate Bud width 3.0-4.0 mm (3.8 mm average) Bud length 5.0-6.0 mm (5.2 mm average) Color reddish brown Flower bud anthocyanin coloration weak Inflorescence length (excluding medium peduncle) Blossoms Shape of corolla elongate-urceolate Size of corolla tube medium Anthocyanin coloration of corolla tube Absent or very weak Calyx 5 lobed Style length 9-10 mm at corolla tip Color of open flower white Flower # per cluster 6-7 Pistil one per flower Pistil color yellowish green (145A) Pistil length 9-10 mm Flower diameter 6-7 mm Flower length 10-11 mm Fragrance faint blueberry aroma Calyx diameter 5 mm Sepals fused, 5 lobes Length Width Color top yellowish green (146C) Color bottom yellowish green (146C) Unripe fruit: intensity of green color medium Reproductive organs Type berry Seed size 1.32 mm Number of seeds 5-32 (12.7 average) Mature fruit Size large Height 1.0-1.2 cm (1.1 cm average) Width 1.5-1.7 cm (1.6 cm average) Shape in longitudinal section round Diameter of calyx basin medium Depth of calyx basin medium Color with bloom violet blue (98D) Color without bloom violet blue (103A) Color of skin after removal of bloom dark blue Intensity of bloom strong Firmness very firm Pedicel scar size 1.5-2.0 mm (1.8 mm average) Pedicel length 7-8 mm Pedicel color yellowish green (144B) Peduncle length 11-13 mm Peduncle color yellowish green (138A) Average weight 2.44 g Sepals none remaining on ripe fruit Cluster density medium Sweetness medium Acidity medium

In multi-state trials, ‘Calypso’ is an upright bush that ripens in the late mid-season, as illustrated in Table 2, below. Specifically, development and fruit characteristics of ‘Calypso’ were evaluated in 2010, 2011, and 2012 at two locations in Michigan, three in Oregon, and one in Chile. Two year old plants were set in 2008 in Michigan, and 2009 in Oregon and Chile. Evaluations were made when the bushes were 30-50% ripe. Its fruit have good color, a good to excellent scar, and excellent firmness and flavor. It has generally produced high yields of very large fruit, although a high number of small berries were reported in Oregon in 2011. This is a characteristic that is also not unusual in the widely planted ‘Liberty.’

TABLE 2 Development and Fruit Characteristics For bush habit: 1 = sprawling, 5 = semi-erect, and 9 = upright. For season: 1 = very early, 4-5 = midseason, and 9 = very late. For vigor and fruit characteristics: 1-4 = inferior, 5-6 = acceptable, 7 = good, 8 = excellent, and 9 = superior. Fruit characteristics State City Year Habit Season Yield Size Color Scar Firmness Flavor Michigan Grand 2010 7 5 8 8 8 8 8 7 Junction 2011 7 6 6 9 6 8 8 7 2012 8 6 8 7 8 8 8 8 South Haven 2010 6 5 7 8 7 8 9 8 2011 8 6 7 8 7 7 9 8 2012 8 5 9 7 7 9 7 8 Mean 7.3 5.5 7.5 7.8 7.2 8.0 8.2 7.7 Oregon Corvallis 2010 6 7 8 7 7 7 6 7 2011 8 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 Lowell 2010 8 5 8 7 7 8 8 8 2011 8 5 8 6¹ 8 6 8 7 Silverton 2010 9 7 8 7 7 6 6 7 2011 8 6 8 8 7 7 8 7 Mean 7.8 5.7 8.0 7.2 7.3 7.0 7.3 7.3 Chile Osomo 2010 7 6 8 9 6 7 8 5 2011 6 4 7 8 8 8 9 9 Mean 6.5 5.0 7.5 8.5 7.0 7.5 8.5 7.0 Grand Mean 7.2 5.4 7.7 7.8 7.2 7.5 8.0 7.3 ¹A high number of small berries were observed in Oregon in 2011; some were also observed in 2012 but far fewer.

In comparative Michigan trials, ‘Calypso’ bloomed and ripened with ‘Legacy,’ a little after ‘Jersey’ and before ‘Liberty,’ as illustrated in Table 3, below. Specifically, mean fruit rating and ranges of ‘Calypso,’ Legacy,' and ‘Liberty’ were evaluated at Grand Junction and South Haven, Mich. in 2010, 2011, and 2012. Two year old plants were set in 2008 at 4×10 foot spacing with 8-15 other Michigan State University (MSU) selections. Fruit evaluations were made when the bushes were 50% ripe. It had higher crop loads than ‘Jersey’ and ‘Legacy,’ but not ‘Liberty.’ ‘Calypso's’ fruit scar and firmness was similar to ‘Liberty’ and better than ‘Jersey’ and ‘Legacy.’ Its flavor was ranked superior to all the others except ‘Liberty,’ and its color was judged comparable to ‘Legacy,’ lighter than ‘Jersey’ and darker than ‘Liberty.’ Calypso's′ vigor was not quite as high as the other three cultivars, but it was rated good to very good.

TABLE 3 Mean Fruit Rating and Ranges The rating scale is 1-9, with 1-4 = inferior, 5-6 = acceptable, 7 = good, 8 = excellent, and 9 = superior. Ranges are in parentheses. Date Date Plant Picking Fruit Cultivar Full bloom 50% ripe vigor Weight Color scar Firmness Flavor load¹ ‘Calypso’  5/13  7/10 7.5 7.8 7.3 8.0 8.2 7.7 7.7 (4/28-5/20) (7/3-7/18) (7-8) (7-9) (7-8) (7-9) (7-9) (7-8) (6-9) ‘Jersey’ 5/7 7/4 8.0 5.6 6.0 6.0 5.5 7.0 7.0 (4/24-5/12) (6/22-7/11) (all 8s) (5-6) (all 6s) (all 6s) (5-6) (all 7s) (6-8) ‘Legacy’ 5/11 7/9 8.5 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.2 7.0 7.0 (4/28-5/15) (6/28-7/15) (8-9) (all 8s) (all 7s) (all 7s) (6-8) (all 7s) (6-8) ‘Liberty’ 5/15 7/26 8.0 7.6 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.5 8.3 (4/28-5/23) (7/17-7/30) (7-9) (7-8) (all 8s) (7-9) (all 8s) (8-9) (7-9) ¹A sharp temperature reduction in the winter of 2011 damaged a high proportion of the flower buds of most cultivars. ‘Calypso’ suffered comparable damage to ‘Liberty’ (about 25%) and had much less damage than ‘Legacy’ (about 60%).

As illustrated in Table 4, below, the fruit weight of ‘Calypso’ was the largest of all cultivars across most years and locations. Specifically, average fruit physical and biochemical characteristics of ‘Calypso’ were compared to standard cultivars in Osorno, Chile (2012) and Grand Junction, Mich. (2011 and 2012). Five-fruit samples were evaluated when the bushes were 30-50% ripe. Levels of soluble solids have been higher than all the standard cultivars except ‘Liberty,’ and its titratable acidity has generally been higher, except in Chile. This sugar/acid ratio suggests that it is tarter than the other cultivars, although it was rated has having a better flavor than all of them except ‘Liberty.” Therefore, the sugar/acid ratio is perceived as being balanced. The higher acid levels in ‘Calypso’ may translate into a longer storage life, as high acid fruit are often less subject to fungal rots. The firmness of ‘Calypso’ was comparable to ‘Draper’ and ‘Liberty’ and superior to ‘Legacy,’ Bluecrop,' and ‘Jersey.’

TABLE 4 Biochemical Characteristics Weight Soluble Titratable Firmness Firmness Cultivar Location Year (g) solids acidity SS/TA (g/mm) (N) ‘Calypso’ Michigan 2011 2.4 15.2 1.26 12.1 — — 2012 1.8 14.3 1.30 11.0 330 — Chile 2012 2.8 15.9 0.68 23.4 — 40.1 ‘Draper’ Michigan 2011 2.1 12.7 0.89 14.3 — — 2012 1.7 11.9 1.05 12.1 334 — ‘Bluecrop’ Michigan 2011 1.6 11.1 0.80 13.9 — 2012 1.6 11.8 0.67 17.6 202 — ‘Legacy’ Michigan 2011 2.0 12.1 0.73 16.6 — — 2012 2.1 13.3 0.52 25.6 301 — Chile 2012 2.2 13.8 0.40 34.5 — 37.6 ‘Liberty’ Michigan 2011 1.8 15.4 0.85 18.2 — 2012 1.7 15.8 0.53 29.8 322 Chile 2012 2.4 14.8 0.70 21.1 43.1 ‘Jersey’ Michigan 2011 1.4 13.2 0.51 25.9 — — 2012 1.2 13.8 0.63 21.9 202 —

As illustrated in Table 5, the fruit of ‘Calypso’ is large and more firm relative to the fruit of ‘Jersey.’ Relative to the fruit of ‘Legacy,’ the fruit of ‘Calypso’ has a very small picking scar and is much firmer.

TABLE 5 Expression Characteristics Expression of the Expression of the characteristic in the characteristic in Cultivar Characteristic cultivar ‘Calypso’ ‘Jersey’ fruit size small to medium large ‘Jersey’ fruit firmness moderately soft firm ‘Legacy’ picking scar medium to small very small ‘Legacy’ fruit firmness moderately firm very firm 

What is claimed is:
 1. A new and distinct highbush blueberry plant, substantially as illustrated and described herein. 